Obviously the term 'public option' has caused some confusion with the public, given all the misinformation, and misrepresentation, we are seeing about what it actually means. Pelosi is suggesting a new name could A) help dispel this misinformation and B) more accurately reflect the purpose of the option. She's not trying to trick anybody...

You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said.
That's funny, I have never heard anyone say that. The people surrounding Pelosi say that. The comment is telling in that they are simply looking for a way to better market this to the American people. They should just change the name to "lipstick on a pig", or in Nan's case maybe botox on a pig.

A different name to deceive and trick dummies...a dangerous & deceitful idea. Why doesn't she try honesty ??

Does Cool DO anything of importance ???....he's always right there just seconds after a new political posting....defending the extreme left.

Ken,

"They" ?

By they, do you mean duly elected officials?

You seem to be paranoid.

When I moved here from France, I was completely shocked by the lack of good health care here. I find it sad but amusing that the great majority of Americans whom have never been outside the United States know how bad national health care is on another continent.

You are aware that the US is the only major industrialized nation to not have national healthcare aren't you?

Does it surprize you that a country as small and impoverished (thanks to US embargo) as Cuba has a better health care system? During the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans, Cuba offered to send 600 Doctors to help. Coming from Cuba, I am sure that they have great experience with hurricane health issues. But the idiot turned them down.

Oh, to answer your question, "they" don't think you are stupid. "They" think you are mis-informed, narcissistic, greedy, selfish, hate-filled, parasitic, dim-witted, and mis-led by FOX.

and a minority...

So today it's "Darlene."
Hi, "Darlene!" I'll tell you what I *don't* do. I don't post just to make inane comments, followed by unprovoked insults.

well now i would bet that it is not selling well so they need to come up with another name like say......collective option, or public option #2, or a cooperative, how about stimulus one not to be confused with stimulus 2, or TARP, how about instead of terrorists we should just call them disfranchised youth, maybe instead of the war on terror we should call it extremists. honestly we are far smarter than in the past and are hip to this stuff.

Bummer, I thought we had made some progress.

Reply to Robis Pierre,
I think if you were truly French or at least schooled in French history you would have chosen a different moniker than Robis Pierre. Maximilian Marie Isidore Robespierre is forever linked to the Reign of Terror (French Revolution, approximately 1793). Robespierre was an ardent foe of both the far left and moderate movements in France and was partially responsible for the arrest and guillotining of many left and moderate members. Approximately a year later in 1794 Robespierre himself was arrested, tried, and guillotined for his "republican" views. As for sitting at home and never traveling beyond the boundaries of Pleasanton, I have indeed traveled, worked, and vacationed in many parts of Europe, including France, and don't particularly recall that my friends and colleagues were any happier or healthier than we in the US. I was, however, appalled by the laziness of many unionized workers who seemed to have every other day off for some sort of religious holiday or socialist celebration. Perhaps that is why the productivity of Europe is so far less than that of the US.

Reply to 'Stay Cool'
Please remain in cold storage. If you can't see through Pelosi's tactics and those of the democratic party your glasses must be frosted and your ear drums frozen from being so 'cool'. I do read, I do listen, and I do research. What I've discovered is that the current proposals in both House and Senate will bankrupt future generations and cannot guarantee they will be healthier. In fact, the pain inflicted by these proposals is likely to drive more people to the doctor to receive care for their nervous disorders.

This is my family name and I know very little of the revolution you discuss. History is not kind to the French.

Are you suggesting that Republicans should be executed?

I think Robis is actually French. There are very, very few Americans who actually believe that Cuba has a better health care system than the US.
As long as you believe that, and take gratuitous shots at Bush, FNC and FNC viewers without adding a single comment pertinent to the actual thread, I will go along with Pierre's claim of nationality

This debate frequently returns to the cost of the program. This year the total expenditures for health care will be approximately 2 trillion dollars. Who in God's name thinks that that is not enough to provide coverage for everyone?

Item___________% of Fed spending________________% of GDP


Medicare____________23.00%________________________4.79%


Defense_____________21.00%________________________4.37%


Social Security_____21.00%________________________4.37%


Other Discretionary__17.00%_______________________3.54%


Other Mandatory______10.00%_______________________2.08%


Interest on debt______8.00%_______________________1.67%


TARP Wall Street bail out_25.18%__________________5.26%

Compare current health care spending to government programs:
Health care expenditures__70.00%__________________14.58%

If I recall correctly, health care if not reorganized will equal about 30% of GDP in about 10 years or so.

The Defense numbers above are inaccurate because the Bush administration never funded the wars through the budget process.

When Paul Bremer was the Czar of Iraq, about 12 billion dollars disappeared. Before the Congress, to paraphrase Bremer's comment: Well it was only 12 billion and you should expect to misplace funds during a war." Where were the fiscal conservatives when Bush was plundering the country? I know your answer: Ah yes, billions for war and theft, but not a damn penny for healthcare!

A recent study shows that 44,000 Americans die each year as a result of no health insurance coverage. How much are 44,000 lives year in and year out worth?

Remember, how much we have spent to get even with Iraq for 9-11 for not being part of the deaths of 3,000 Americans? More than the CBO estimate for healthcare reform.

Ken,
I thought I was very measured in my initial response to your post, and am sorry that you can't afford me the same consideration. What I have read of the proposals does not lead me to the same conclusion you have drawn. We aren't looking for a guarantee for people to be healthier, though I think that would be a natural result of more people having increased access to healthcare. There are plenty of families out there now suffering nervous disorders over illness or potential illness that might ruin them physically through the wait and financially due to lack of insurance.

Jimf01,

Pardonez moi!

But I thought this thread was about Pelosi, health care reform costs and most importantly: Ken doesn't know how stupid he is.(He said it, not me.)

I tried to encourage him, to support his education with some facts for comparison, and to improve his poor self esteem but he is certainly stubborn.

Reply to Robis,
I re-read your initial post in which you wrote about moving here from France and implied extensive personal knowledge of the health care systems in Europe. I learned of Robespierre in my world history classes in the US. Perhaps French schools spent more time teaching US history than French history. Or perhaps you moved here so young that you didn't have the opportunity to attend school in France. In which case you obviously didn't learn anything in YOUR world history class. Come on Robby, you are no more French than I am Chinese, and based on your response to my response, I don't think you have as much experience with European health care as you implied. By the way, check your numbers on that list you published. If health care expenditures are 70% of federal spending as you published, and defense and social security are each 21%, the total is already 112% of federal spending without adding all the other . You must also be a Democrat to think we would swallow numbers like that without reading, adding, and thinking. Just what Pelosi and her colleagues depend on to pass bills like the one they are rushing through the House.

Healthcare expenditures are not part of the Federal budget; they are what is spent annually by Americans COMPARED

oops. hit the wrong key...

Healthcare expenditures in the table are not part of the Federal budget; they are what is spent annually by Americans

COMPARED

to various government budget items. Of course it will add up to more than 100%.

I did not spend very much time in school. I worked on a small vinyard after I was 12.

So Ken, you are much smarter than me apparently. Can you tell me how much 44,000 lives per year are worth in dollars?

Monsieur Pierre - Even the most ardent conservative would say that $2t is enough, simple math, $2t works out to $6666 per American, so there is enough to pay for your insurance.
But no, we cannot have a simple program to subsidize or provide tax credits so the uninsured can buy health insurance on the open market, we need giant new bureaucracies, we need to scrap everything and start over.
The argument falls on how to best spend taxpayers money, and can the US government handle the task? Should the government even get into the business? Does the government do a good job with the health care programs they administer now? The most successful recent US sponsored health care program was Medicare part D. It was left to private industry to run a prescription drug program with oversight from the govt.
Of course there are more questions. Can we afford it? The budget deficit has skyrocketed. Another big one is do we trust the Democrats who are proposing this plan when they say they are not planning to move the country to socialized medicine, i.e. single payer which opinion polls show American's do not want.
Those are the questions. Brenner losing track of $12B or 2,996 lost on 9/11, etc, are irrelevant to this.
PS - your stats on 44,000 dying each year and 30% of GDP for health care are incorrect -- Please know your facts before you start arguing the issues.

Ken,

You are confusing me. You said I was republican and was executed. Now you said I am a Democrat.

Actually, I like to think of myself as a Christian witness to truth.

I hope you are feeling better about your self image now that we have been posting.

By the way, when you were in France, did you get sick?

I have to go now. I will check back later. My Mom wants me to dinner.

Jim, Mon amie.

If you think 12 billion is insignificant, just give it to me. I'm sure you won't notice.

The point was not the 12 billion, the point was the perfidy and hypocracy of people opposed to health care reform due to cost and deficit concerns, whom by and large seem to have convenient amnesia about the money thrown down the sewers of Baghdad (and probably into numbered Swiss accounts.)

So Bremmer and the War in Iraq are relevant to all budget issues. Especially to programs that are beneficial to the general civilian population. I think economists pose this conundrum as "guns or butter."

44,000 is a number quoted on the floor of the House of Representatives from a report developed at Harvard. (I know a school with a very poor reputation.) But I stand by the number.

Regardless, even if it is less than 44,000, where is your morality? No one, not a single person, should die due to lack of insurance.

How much is a single human life worth to you?

How much should I spend to prevent you from dying from a curable disease?

30% of GDP was a long term projection used by various government branches and reported in various news media. Since it is a projection, there can be no right or wrong at least for another 15 years or so, only cause for a thinking person to see a dangerous and costly trend.

mon dieu! My mom is yelling at me. Dinner is ready. Au revoir.

"Death Panels" was already trademarked by Palin.

stay cool.

i thought you went away as I have not heard from you in a few days and thought maybe you saw the light and realized obambi is not good for us but no. pelosi is as dumb as a box of rocks but she thinks we are as well. maybe she is right because we voted these idiots in. i halfway hope they get it through because it is going to be a bloodbath next year in the elections. the republicans are going to have a field day with this one. heck i could even win and i know i can play b ball and golf better than the king.

Hey Robby,
I want to catch you before your Mom calls you to bath and bed.
Interesting that you worked in the vineyards. You are probably aware that over 75,000 deaths per year are related to excessive alcohol use. See this report from 2004, and you can search the Internet to see how much that has grown since then.
Web Link
Last time I checked, wine had alcohol. Have you also spent time working on tobacco farms?
Jim echoes my concern that we are trying to 'fix' something by trashing it altogether rather than identifying the major contributing factors that lead to high cost and fixing those components. The latter approach is a more sane approach and would be a less costly approach than that proposed by the House and Senate.

What happened to the "real" poster boy? Stay Cool - is that the "real" you? If so, good job registering your name. Apparently some people have difficulty thinking up their own.

i wonder if fat people are going to have to pay more for health insurance? Julie, do you know?

Robis and Jim,
You are both incorrect - the actual number is 45,000/year:
Web Link
"Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School."
I posted this as a topic last month.

Hi Julie, it's me. Good to see you here! :)

RP - I didn't say insignificant, I said irrelevant, as in _not relevant_ to the issue. If your argument is end defense spending and direct the money to healthcare, then pose the argument and get off Iraq and Bush, because our new President is still fighting a war.

The last person I want preaching to me about the moral imperative is a liberal. If you tell me you are pro-life, we can talk some more about universal coverage.

If you believe no one, not a single person, should die due to lack of medical care, then do you disagree with Robert Reich here, especially the bit that comes at 1:17 --> Web Link

For more info on the 44,000 number, here is the study --> PDF Web Link Don't listen to everything Rep Grayson tells you. A couple of things of note, the 44,000 number is a projection is based on a sample of 9000 people, they state that they eliminate almost 30% of the initial sample because they didn't have complete info. They also state they do not have any info on whether study participants later obtained or dropped coverage!

Thanks for the CNN story, instead of saying that there is a political angle to this, I will simply highlight this bit:

Two authors of the Harvard study, Himmelstein and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler are co-founders of the Physicians for a National Health Program, which supports government-backed "single-payer" health coverage.
The National Center for Policy Analysis, which backs "free-market" health care reform, calls the Harvard research flawed.
"The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," said John C. Goodman, the president of the NCPA in a statement. But Goodman did note there is "a genuine crisis of the uninsured in this country."

Wow, Poser Boy, you are SO funny! I am impressed that a 10 year old is here debating health care. You should engage in more age appropriate, care free diversions like making spit wads.

What happened to the real poster boy?

I think it was pretty brave to begin a thread with: "How stupid do they think we are?" Obviously since there is so much confusion regarding the term "public option", the answer to that question is: "quite".

Jim F wrote: "The last person I want preaching to me about the moral imperative is a liberal. If you tell me you are pro-life, we can talk some more about universal coverage."
OK, let's chat. The brush you're using to paint liberals is a bit too broad.

Stacey,

the other poster boy changed his name to robis pierre because he could not stand the heat so now Stay Cool has a frenchy to talk with. you should enjoy as well because i bet as well as you get along with sty cool you would like frenchy.

poser boy, why don't you get off my back?

stay cooooool,

for someone who likes to get on others nerves you sure seem thinned skinned.........why is that?

I'm not even thinking about your nerves - I'm just trying to talk about health care reform.

stay cool,

let me guess? if it is anti american and extremely liberal you are all for it....right???

Stay Cool,

You have heard of internet trolls, haven't you?

Yep.

How stupid do they think we are?

Web Link

Perhaps we should call it what it really is, "Gratuitous Spending of Future Generations' Income to Benefit Less Than 10% of the Population Health Care Demolition Bill of 2009". I know it is a mouthful, but Pelosi could probably find a good marketing person to choose different words that create a nice acronymn, like "Sucker".

So, now that all you kids have had your dinner, presumably a bath, and maybe even a bedtime story, let's get back to the original point of this post, which is that you can dress a pig up in one of Pelosi's pretty party gowns, but when it arrives at the party it is still a pig. We've all proven that we can find someone somewhere who at some time has supported our beliefs, and because it can be Googled it MUST be true. Now is the time to use your own common sense and make a decision. Some will make their choice one way, some the other way, and in twenty years we might begin to know who is right. But ask yourself this. If you were thousands of dollars in debt and had a ruinous spending habit that kept putting you further and further in debt, is the appropriate next step to continue spending by borrowing against your credit card and perhaps your family's savings? This is exactly what our government is doing. I don't care whether you are French, Cool, Julie, Jim, 44,000 or 45,000, it just does not make sense and should not be condoned or allowed. Vote every incumbent out of office at the next election - Rebpublican, Democrat, Independent - it doesn't matter. They are all reckless with our tax dollars and should be allowed to go back to the streets from which they came.

So I'm out for a week because I'm a bit busy with actual work (the paying kind) and I come back to find that some fool has usurped my name and gone on a verbal (Word removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff) binge usually only seen by our holiest of evangelical preachers. Nice job, so-called poster boy. Aside from proving a complete lack of originality, you apparently think you're really cute too. I wouldn't be surprised if you spend the last waking moments of each day staring longingly at the Bon Jovi poster you have hanging on the wall of the room--the very room you grew up in and intend to stay in until match.com finally finds someone compatible with you (good luck) and as long as your parents provide free wi-fi and hot pockets, of course. I especially liked the fat comment a few posts up. Brilliant. You're hilarious!!!

Catching up on my threads, I really enjoyed the thread on foxnews supposedly being silenced by Obama and how he supposedly is trying to silence descent and undermining the message of anyone who disagrees with him...this coming from a guy who usurps a screen name to post contrarian posts in the hopes of undermining his message. Keep on staring at that bon jovi poster...he wants you...he really does...

Having been offline for several days I can't decide if it's funny or pathetic that you've basically continued to use the name I had been posting under for several weeks and assumed i'd fled the kitchen due to the sweltering heat (i'm burning up in here! the crucible of the pleasanton town square forums! aaaaaayyyyy!!!!), but if it's so important to you keep it...along with your bon jovi poster...

But sure, like I said before i disappeared last week, what's in a name. I think my posts speak for themselves, so I'm sure those unfortunate enough to spend a lot of time reading through these threads will recognize my stuff without the need for a silly name.

In the meantime, keep on filling out those applications to Denny's...i'm sure they'll break down and hire you eventually...


Ken, I love the post up there in response to a guy who claims to have worked at a vineyard you point out that alcohol kills 75,000 people each year. That was hilarious. Yes, a 12 year old frenchman should be held accountable for all the alcohol-related deaths each year. I once worked at a gas station in college, maybe I shouldn't say anything about healthcare because of all the people who are killed in traffic accidents each year caused by me selling them gas. Have *you* ever worked on a tobacco farm? It's this level of intellectual banter that keeps me coming back for more. Or maybe it's the heat, I can't decide. Oh, and I love that a bill that has been debated in 5 different congressional committees for over a year is being "rushed through congress by Pelosi." Good argument.

RE: "Jim echoes my concern that we are trying to 'fix' something by trashing it altogether rather than identifying the major contributing factors that lead to high cost and fixing those components." Explain to me exactly which parts of the senate or congressional plans are trashing the system altogether? It seems to be doing exactly what you're asking for "identifying the major contributing factors that lead to high cost and fixing the components". Both congressional plans leave in place the employer-provided health system 150 million americans already use. This system is not being trashed and I don't know how you can claim it is. What leads to high costs is having so many uninsured either due to affordability or due to those with pre-existing conditions or people whose coverage is dropped. The senate plans will ban denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions and it will prohibit plans from dropping people from their coverage. It also addresses the problem of uninsured through subsidies, mandates, and YES! a public option that will be made available to those who qualify and will provide competition to private plans in areas where they hold a virtual monopoly. This should lower the ranks of the uninsured to below 8% of the population. Yes, not 100% universal coverage, but a good first step and one that will lead to lower increase in costs and more affordable insurance for all. These savings will filter through the system. If nothing is done, the cost of insurance will approach 30k/year/employee. This is what will trash the system. In the end, the senate plan reid announced today and one being pushed by democrats all YEAR (and not being "rushed through congress by pelosi" as some love to claim) is doing EXACTLY what you're asking for. Keep what's good about the current system in place while addressing its short comings. Is this bill perfect? no. Is it a good first step that will address many of the problems and shortcomings of our system? yes. But for you to claim that it's trashing our system is just plain wrong.

Anyway, for those who made it through this rant, kudos.

OPB,

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Well said.

Another Pleasanton Neighborhood,

I am Robis Pierre. Today I found Town Square. I never posted here before. I am not poster or poser boy.

Ken,

I am not 12 now. That was my age when I went to work.

My mama is 90 and I have her in my home to keep her safe. Cooking dinner makes her feel she is contributing but sometimes the food is un... American style.

I did not know wine causes 75000 deaths a year. Do you think alcohol should be illegal?

Jim,

I am a Christian witness to truth!

Not a liberal, not a Democrat, not a Republican.

I believe that it is immoral to let people die due to lack of wealth. How can I more clearly state that I am pro-life?

I am also a conservative. I believe that conserving everything is an existential imperative for the human race due to the population time bomb.

Jim, you really don't see the hypocracy of opposing health care reform due to cost at the same time as supporting a war in Iraq without its cost inserted into the budget as done by the Bushman?

So for both Jim and Ken,

How much are 45,000 lives worth per year?

For those who think that 44k or 45k are incorrect, forget the mass consumption and tell me how much one life is worth?

How much is your life worth?

If it is 45,000 per year, then that averages 3700 or so a month. Thats approximately equivalent to having a 9-11 event each and every month.

So can I assume that since we are experiencing a 9-11 event every month that you will support a declaration of war on the health industry and to hell with the budget and deficit?

Thank you for your support!

Pro-life, pro-guns, pro-morality!

Ken,

I am re-reading your recent post:

"Now is the time to use your own common sense and make a decision. Some will make their choice one way, some the other way, and in twenty years we might begin to know who is right. But ask yourself this. If you were thousands of dollars in debt and had a ruinous spending habit that kept putting you further and further in debt, is the appropriate next step to continue spending by borrowing against your credit card and perhaps your family's savings? This is exactly what our government is doing."

Isn't this an argument to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and return all American troops also from Korea, Japan, Germany, Spain, England, etc, etc to the US?

it is pretty hard to even debate with stay cool because his position on everything is the same. anti american and extremely liberal. now he is joined by reader as usual and robbis pierre or formerly known as poster boy the new frenchy to the blog.

Poster Boy of Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood,

I am not poster boy.

I am not anti-American.

I am a Christian Witness to Truth that is firmly pro-life!

There is no debate when I can't get an answer from the anti-reformers as to the cash value of 44,000 lives?

It is really a quite simple question, perhaps you have the moxie to state your value for even a single life?

How much of your money will you spend to save a member of your family?

Robes peter,

what is your position on the War in Afghanistan and how do you feel about all of those boys getting killed for Obama's war when he plans on either not giving them enough assets to do the job or cutting and running? By the way, the following link is just the beginning of the critism of our President.........just the beginning. Anybody notice we have all of these problems and he is in Virginia today campaigning for the Democrat governor? Disgusting.



Web Link

"I believe that it is immoral to let people die due to lack of wealth. How can I more clearly state that I am pro-life? "

Yea, that's the real irony here, isn't it, social conservatives who most likely are pro-life not trying to find a way to provide affordable health care for all?

Poster boy, (how many poster boys are here?)

This is pretty far from the thread, I suppose a "guns or butter" connection is tenable.

You are confusing me with Ken. Ken gave a very powerful and cogent argument against war in the thread above already. I don't need to repeat it.

I will simply state that war is a complete failure of humanity.

I would like to ask you some questions.

Is al queda in Afghanistan?

How long do you think we should stay in Afg.?

Did invading Iraq damage our ability to effectively get to al queda?

What is the longest war we have ever been engaged in and for how long?

Can we wage a war and have good health care? or are they mutually exclusive?

Oh yeah, also, how much is a human life worth to you?

Pro-life, pro-guns, pro-morality

So, to recap the French interloper, first you claim Cuba has superior medical care and take a gratuitous shot at Bush, conservatives and FNC.
You continue with the typical liberal rants about 9-11, spending on defense vs social programs, bla bla.
Then we get the tough questions, How much is a single human life worth to you, and how much should I spend to prevent you from dying from a curable disease?
Which of course, come after I try to ask the real questions surrounding the health care reform debate.
The answers to your questions is, of course, that every life is precious and priceless. The reality is, of course, that this has zero to do with the debate, because many people will go through their entire lives without a major surgery, injury or disease and die of old age, naturally. So we cannot take a value of a life and calculate anything from that.
So if you want to debate health care reform, then you can start answering some of what I have said and stop quoting 44,000 from a debunked, politically motivated study. Stop talking about Bush and Bremer and 9-11 and the morality of war. Stop quoting phony statistics, you cannot back something up by saying it has been quoted on the US House floor or in the media, because many lies are told in both places every day (well in the House 4 days a week anyway)

To restate what you ignored: The argument falls on how to best spend taxpayers money, and can the US government handle the task? Should the government even get into the business? Does the government do a good job with the health care programs they administer now? The most successful recent US sponsored health care program was Medicare part D. It was left to private industry to run a prescription drug program with oversight from the govt.

Of course there are more questions. Can we afford it? The budget deficit has skyrocketed. Another big one is do we trust the Democrats who are proposing this plan when they say they are not planning to move the country to socialized medicine, i.e. single payer which opinion polls show American's do not want.

Welcome back OPB, I was almost in despair without you. I, like you, sincerely hope that fake pb (lower case) will go away.
I have to come back after you for one thing right away. You give the best reply to your own rejoinder to Ken:
Explain to me exactly which parts of the senate or congressional plans are trashing the system altogether?
And follow with:... This should lower the ranks of the uninsured to below 8% of the population. Yes, not 100% universal coverage, but a good first step.
Well there you go. Just as Obama said a few years back, and Rep Frank said in his hearing room, this is just the first step towards universal coverage.
That is the goal, and there is no clearer reason for insurance companies to oppose Reid and Pelosi's backroom bill with the public-competitive-option-opt-out-trigger-provision, or whatever they are calling it this week. And to top that off it leaves 8% uninsured?!?

Jimf01,

Of course universal coverage is the goal. It's a mantra now. "Not a single person should die due to a lack of health insurance." It's just that simple. The question is how we get there. But if you're claiming that the health insurance industry should fight HCR because we might someday end up with a system where everyone has coverage and wouldn't that just be an awful thing! well, that's just warped. I can see you having a problem of reaching universal coverage through single-payer or some other government intervention, fine. But if you're claiming that the industry should fight this plan cuz we might all end up with coverage, that's nuts.

This is a first step. This plan goes far, but not far enough. I myself would prefer a single-payer plan, cut out the private insurers, drop the profit motive out of the health insurance delivery system (as opposed to the health *delivery* system), when we all know that single payer systems are much more efficient, have overhead costs of 3 or 4% versus the 20-25% private insurers have, but the house and senate plans aren't coming anywhere near this. You can claim it's a slippery slope, etc...fine, but social security and medicare were supposed to be slippery slopes to european style socialism and communism, and the last time i checked i dont' see too many marxists running around. That argument won't fly.

The insurance companies are nuts to fight this because they're about to see an influx of 30 million+ new customers. They just want to hold onto their anti-trust exemptions and the near monopolies they have in most smaller states. The public option gives them the type of competition in many of these areas they've never had to deal with before. These companies are able to collude on prices, create virtual cartels for healthcare delivery, and walk away with obscene profits while deliverying a less-than-stellar product. They shot themselves in the foot with the phony study they release last week and now they're scrambling to hold onto the golden egg they've been beating us over the head with for years.

And you've got to get over this garbage about backroom deals and secret bills and "rushed bills" and all this garbage. The fact that you haven't paid attention to the legislative process before doesn't mean this isn't exactly how every single bill is formed and debated and written in congress. This is not some secret deal between shadowy conspirators. That kind of talk is just silly and shows both an ignorance of the legislative process and histrionics of the most annoying degree.

Jim, great posts.

Pierre, no matter how much of my money you try to commit to stopping people from dying, it won't change a thing. It's similar to the arguement that we need to give the govt schools more money so the kids will be better educated, whne it's the bureaucracy that prevents their success.
Young people choose to spend their money on lots of things other than health insurance...it's their choice. Mnay young people engage in risky behavior and die....guess what, they are part of your 44k statistic, making it even more meaningless.
The govt can't run anything efficiently. They have no incentive to do so because they can always go back to the well (taxpayers) and get more money.

Well now I know PB is back, I am already being dismissed as ignorant. Histrionics, yes I agree, I am quite animated over this subject. You attempt over and over this Jedi mind trick, telling us all that the Dems are not doing what we are told they are doing, then it comes out that this is what they are doing.
The process is not really what is important, the end result is what is important, so Dems can call Republicans the party of no during the process, when what the GOP is saying no to is single payer and socializing 16% of the economy, as I have been saying all along. We are seeing more smoke and mirrors in this process just this week with this opt out thing.
PB, show us your expertise with the process and tell me when the portion of the legislation with states opt out provision was introduced, debated, added to an amendment, anywhere in the process? Reid is now telling us this is what is fair, but it was nowhere to be found in the original bill the Dems tried to ram through before the summer.
I am going to agree with your entire 3rd paragraph, except the first sentence and the word obscene. The 131% increase in profits stat you have been throwing out repeatedly has been shown to be actual histrionics, the insurance companies are now running about 2.2% average profit margin Web Link

I was gonna save my comments about seeing marxists running around, but apparently you didn't spend any time at the White House while you were away, eh?

OPB,

Are you at all worried about stifling innovation in the pharmaceutical industry by controlling prices on their products? I could point to all sorts of links, but I think it is fair to say the US currently leads the world in innovation in this field. I think we need to be careful not to dismantle that industry.

Prices are already "controlled" through negotiation between service providers and risk pools. The larger the risk pool, the more bargaining power the pool has. Now imagine the bargaining power of a risk pool the size of the US population.

"A different name to deceive and trick dummies"??? Uhhh...Ya mean, kinda like John McCain who's trying to give telecomm companies the power to BLOCK our access to INTERNET content by calling his A-N-T-I net-neutrality bill, "The Internet FREEDOM ACT of 2009"?? And riling people with his one-line campaigns of dis-information like, "Tell the government to keep their hands off the internet"?? HAA!! Clearly you recognize your own age old REPUBLICAN ploy... Pellosi just wants people to have ACCURATE information. (Shame on her, huh!)

reader,
Considering most "innovations" of pharmaceutical companies are in fact the result of research conducted either in league with or completely by the National Institute of Health (NIH), with the big pharma companies taking the fruits of this research and running off with the profits, yeah, I'm quaking in my boots that this might stifle innovation. Actually, the only thing that would make me worry about innovation being stifled is if the GOP managed to shutdown the NIH...

Most of the other drugs the R&D depts of pharmaceuticals come up with on their own is "me-too" drugs, where they take another company's formula, change a molecule or two, and re-release it to market. These guys are genuises....at making money...

so the answer to your question is, no, i'm not worried about this bill stifling innovation at all...can you tell me why i should be?

Wow Ken... You're just a real piece of work, aren't ya!?

OPB,

You sound pretty confident that will not. Why do you say most "innovations"? Does most mean 50%? How do you measure that?

I'm worried because it will take away some of the profit incentive for the company. The same thing would happen if you controlled the price of microprocessors. Companies like Intel would have less incentive to innovate. Why doesn't that principle apply to pharmaceutical companies?

Reply to AZ36
Thanks AZ. Not often someone takes time to actually post a nice compliment about someone on this site. I really appreciate it and look forward to reading more of your insightful and educational comments.

Re: Innovations

I think the altruistic nature of the private industry reveals itself in stories like this... NOT. Supposedly "a reader" above thinks that artificially lowering the price of drugs would lower innovation. But it doesn't reflect reality. Innovation has already been stifled in one type of drug and it has nothing to do with any sort of price controls.

Web Link

"The purpose of this document, however, is to call attention to a frightening twist in the antibiotic resistance problem that has not received adequate attention from federal policymakers: The pharmaceutical pipeline for new antibiotics is drying up."

"The pipeline of new antibiotics is drying up. Major pharmaceutical companies are losing interest in the antibiotics market because these drugs simply are NOT AS PROFITABLE as drugs that treat chronic (long-term) conditions and lifestyle issues."

Notice that the suggested solutions to the problem include additional corporate subsidy to drug companies! Now this isn't to say that artificial price controls couldn't have a chilling effect, only that there already is an innovation problem and it had nothing to do with price controls.

Anti-reformers admit that life is priceless.

So you are basing your opposition on greed and selfishness!

Ken,

Don't forget all of my compliments!

" Now this isn't to say that artificial price controls couldn't have a chilling effect, only that there already is an innovation problem and it had nothing to do with price controls."

Yes, I agree there are already problems and the new artificial price controls could make matters worse.

Sorry Robby,
I forgot to acknowledge your kind and insightful comments as well as those from AZ. Grace unto you and your family.

Since the frog cannot or will not answer any of my questions, I win this one.

Stacey,

You said:

"Supposedly "a reader" above thinks that artificially lowering the price of drugs would lower innovation. But it doesn't reflect reality. Innovation has already been stifled in one type of drug and it has nothing to do with any sort of price controls."

That doesn't follow. You say that innovation has been stifled in one way and for one kind of drug. How does it follow that innovation can't be stifled in other ways? Like through price controls?

Posted by a reader, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, 5 hours ago

" Now this isn't to say that artificial price controls couldn't have a chilling effect, only that there already is an innovation problem and it had nothing to do with price controls."

Yes, I agree there are already problems and the new artificial price controls could make matters worse.

=====================

Moreover, define your version of "price control". What I assume it means is central-planning style price setting but I think what you have in mind is really price negotiation. I can't see how price negotiation is "price control". Price negotiation is at the very heart of traditional free markets, aka bartering.

Jim,
I couldn't participate much today, I had to work out of town.

When you refuse to consider the total number of deaths because the source is not in your political camp, (so you don't believe 44k, hows 35K sound to you, (or 25k, or 15k, or 5k) more accurate? You aren't foolish enough to believe that it is zero are you?)

but finally found the guts to answer that even a single life is priceless,

and then continue to debate cost as a basis for opposition, then there is no debate possible.

It is not a question of cost or government efficiency.

It is a question of morality!

You play this as a parlor contest while human beings are dying. IMMORAL!!!

Since you introduced the question of not talking with me because I'm not pro-life, a completely IRRATIONAL assumption (so irrational I won't bother explaining the simple concept to you, see above unless you request another explanation);

and since you value cash efficiency over human life therefore:

You are not a winner but you are an irrational, IMMORAL, HYPOCRITICAL FOOL!

Even when you finally admit that human life is priceless, you continue to oppose saving lives because some people who are healthy don't need health care. This answer is completely irrational and does not go to the question of getting 47 million uncovered citizens health care. You loser!!!

Then you trot out "the end justifies the means" argument. IMMORAL again.

I thought about not discussing this with you anymore but decided to try one last time to get you to think.

Steve P.,

To paraphrase your comment: saving some human lives is useless because you can't save them all, so just give up and don't save any.

Please read the entire thread. There is plenty of money already being spent to afford coverage for everyone. So don't worry about your PIGGY bank.

You are correct, opposing saving lives because some people who are healthy don't need health care does not go to the question of getting 47 million uncovered citizens health care. I am glad you read what I wrote and finally understand that.
Now that we have cleared that hurdle, we can discuss what the questions are that do go the question of getting 47 million (or 30 million as the President said in his last address to Congress) uncovered citizens health care, if you care to stop throwing ridiculous insults and start getting to the actual topic.

But I am an irrational, immoral, hypocritical fool, so why bother?

Oh wait, here is one, in your very next post! "There is plenty of money already being spent to afford coverage for everyone". Maybe we can discuss the source of that money, where it is being spent, etc, and why that money is not being put to proper use to "cover everyone". I mean, you seem to be admitting that it is a finite number of dollars needed to care for everyone. Please, enlighten me. Explain this statement.

jim01,

dont't forget "loser" as he called you that also. how did the ranks of the uninsured get up to 47 million? the stats i have seen, which does not include illegals, says only about 9 million are uninsured. heck, even our lib prez does not even go that high. maybe this is pelosi math.

Poster Boy,

Jim declared himself a winner while I was out of town working. So I thought I should refute his claim of winning.

I am not here to play a parlor game of winning or losing.

People are dying while you guys make up one selfish, greedy, immoral excuse after another.

However, maybe Jim is moving a little bit.

Jim has agreed that human life is precious.

And Jim has acknowledged that the problem is to determine how to get millions of un-insured citizens covered, (I don't care to quibble over the exact figure, lets stipulate that is a lot of people)

So the next step, how does a society equitably distribute healthcare to those that can't afford it and make sure it is of adequate quality?

I submit that the most cost effective, fastest, and easiest to implement method is to turn Medicare into a single payer, cradle to grave, no ifs, ands, or buts preexisting condition exclusions.

This maximizes the risk pool to its ultimate participant mass thus minimising the costs to the best possible ratio.

Well, there you go, every progressive, and I mean every one, I have ended up debating this subject with ends up here. Single payer. And Obama, Frank and others have stated straight out in the past that this is the goal.
The media is reporting that it is the extreme left that is demanding this of Obama. So we do not need health care reform as it is being packaged, debated and negotiated.
We need single payer, that is the position. That is why you cannot muster a decent group of Democrats to demonstrate for this on the street. When it came to immigration reform, opposing Bush, the war, or what have you, it was (and still is, G20, etc) possible to get a large group to get angry.
But our Democrat led Congress will not have single payer even discussed in a hearing room, they have tossed folks out of the hearings for trying to bring it up!
Why is all this happening? Because Obama and the Congress know that seniors and people who have employer benefits do not want to give up their benefits.
People will say in polls they want the system fixed. They want everyone to have decent health care.
The GOP will support reforms. If Congress could gather the courage to oppose trial lawyers, we could have real tort reform that would benefit everyone. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines would increase competition and reduce cost of insurance, competition always does that. A Safeway-style incentive plan to make Americans more healthy would reduce costs and make us a stronger nation. There are many ideas on the table with broad based support.
But the Dems are trying to play it both ways. They say the GOP is just the party of no, while at the same time they wink at the base, and say their public option is the first step, they will wait til Obama's second term to attempt single payer.
It all comes down to that. Either you want single payer, or you want common sense reforms that have TRUE bipartisan support and don't double down on Obama's stimulus-fueled budget deficits.

As for your reasoning that A causes B, i.e. single payer, cradle to grave will maximize the risk pool to its ultimate participant mass thus minimising the costs to the best possible ratio.
You assume there will be no waste fraud and abuse. Obama tries to rally support for reforms by saying we will pay for most of the proposed by reforms by weeding waste, fraud and abuse out of the current system. But there are few provisions in the legislation currently out there to do that.
What do you think would happen if the Dems rolled out the waste fraud and abuse legislation on its own, passed it, and recovered $500billion as they say they can?
Heck, even if it was only $250B the Dems would be hailed as heroes, the GOP would be the rightly termed the real anti-reformers for not taking this action while Bush was in office. The Dems would have momentum to be re-elected in 2010 and pass any health care related legislation they cared to put forth!
I think that it is because they know that it is easy to identify problems, but fixing them is not so easy politically.

And I could only think of this when reading monsoor pierres insults:

youtube clip from Monty Python & the Holy Grail --> Web Link

Robis Pierre,

I would agree that something needs to be done but do not believe that the current programs are well thought out. I mean they are trying to merge various plans into one which they hope can make its way through. This sounds like a disaster. I am in Canada and the healthcare system up here is good if you are healthy, but if you are sick it is the worst in the world. One advantage they have is that it is almost impossible to sue a doctor unless it is just blatant like cutting the wrong leg off or something. Even when that happens the judgement is reasonable, not $30-40 million settlement. By the way, people die up here also.

jimf01 wrote: "Well, there you go, every progressive, and I mean every one, I have ended up debating this subject with ends up here. Single payer. And Obama, Frank and others have stated straight out in the past that this is the goal."

What is the problem with single-payer? The reason for it as a goal has to do with its effectiveness at providing universal coverage while keeping costs under control. My bet is that Congress will water it down and not go as far as it needs to in order to implement a good system here. Then taxpayers really lose out. We'll have another system of specific welfare where you have to qualify for it through socio-economic status (and the middle class gets squeezed even more by not qualifying for it) while the Constitution says "provide for the general welfare".

Web Link "That's what happened in Taiwan, which adopted a single-payer system in 1995: the percentage of the population with health insurance soared from 57 percent to 97 percent, yet health care costs actually grew more slowly than one would have predicted from trends before the change in system."

"Over the years since the failure of the Clinton health plan, a great deal of evidence has accumulated on the relative merits of private and public health insurance. As far as we have been able to ascertain, all of that evidence indicates that public insurance of the kind available in several European countries and others such as Taiwan achieves equal or better results at much lower cost."

I guess I have to explain how a risk pool works.

EVERYONE is in the pool! Rich, poor, middleclass. We all jump in together and everyone gets wet.

The cost of jumping into the pool is lower because the pool supplier maximizes economies of mass production. (You know who Henry Ford is, yes?)

The less people jumping in, the higher the price. (Where we are at now.)

The extra advantage of a government plan is that you eliminate the enormous profit margins of the current monopoly private suppliers.

The current suppliers piece meal the pool into tiny segments for rating and at the same time limit the service they provide with exceptions and pre-existing clauses to lower their costs.

Poster Boy from another Pleasanton neighborhood,

Canada, that's a suburb of Pleasanton huh? (Just kidding. Actually I am glad you are in here.)

Of course people die in Canada. (Snotty Canadian joke: "but how can you tell?")

Any system is good when you are healthy.

How do you quantify "the worst system in the world?"

What is good about not letting injured people get compensated through the leagal system?

Sorry, which current monopoly private suppliers are making enormous profit margins?
And are you going to address waste fraud and abuse rampant in the current system.

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy,

I needed to get your attention! We made progress towards agreeing on a plan but not until I replied as I was being mentioned (frog?) I have managed le baseball team and some players need the velvet gloves and some players need a good spanking. I thought you have the thick skin, yes?

So we all agree now that the current system is a disaster, with extreme over charging in all sections, including waste, fraud and abuse.

An anecdotal story used to illuminate a part of the problem rarely discussed: In 1992 my friend broke his ankle and was taken to an emergency room. While in the ER it was determined that he had not received a tentanus shot for so many years that he was at risk. So he was given the shot. After the shot a small cotton ball and bandaid were placed over the hole. When he got his bill, (no insurance, he had to pay himself) the shot cost $100.00, the bandaid cost $10.00 and the cottonball cost $5.00. He showed me the bill so I saw it with my own eyes.

Second example: my brother needed a maintenance shot, once a week. If he went to the Doctor's office, requiring about 2-1/2 hrs driving and waiting time round trip, insurance paid the entire bill. But he could barely walk, so it was much easier to go to the pharmacy drive-in window (about ten minute round trip) and give himself the shot. $100.00 a week for the shot and insurance would not pay anything.

So I do not forget or ignore waste, fraud, and abuse. I expect it, we are human beings. It will happen in ANY system. So with single payer, the money crosses fewer palms, therefore, less opportunity for the cheat, bribe, kickback, over-charge, etc.

I do not care for Democrats or Republicans, they are not solving problems together. I long for the Bull Moose.

Jimmy,

All of them.

If an insurance company is underwritten correctly they never lose money. I will have to look back, several weeks ago a report showed profit increase 150% year to year, but I can't afford my memory medicine, so I forgot the brand.

Are you an isurance CEO?

I agree waste, fraud & abuse - terrible. How do you think we get rid of it? Maybe we can chop off some heads? (Metaphorically of course.)

Has anybody seen Ken lately?

Jimmy,

Are you considering single payer, if I can show you big profits for health industry?

The projections I have seen for current healthcare expenditures in total are $2, + trillion per year.

Without access to IRS files, and corporate bookeeping, I guess that should be considered a guideline rather than a rule.

I still answered you after your la petite rant, so I guess I have shown the thickness of my skin. I have been to Paris, so I am accustomed to arrogant Frenchmen.

Your numbers are way off -- the stat touting a 131% increase in health insurers profits over 10 years is not so exciting since the news is now out that the health insurance industry is now running a 2.2% profit margin, --> Web Link

Of course ,the response is that the entire medical industry should be non-profit, how dare you profit off of someone else's illness or misfortune, you immoral bastard.

Last I checked, this was still a free country, but I will keep checking. The answer is not to make profits illegal. The answer is to preserve the incentives in the system, preserve liberty while fixing the problems.

We agree on one thing, moi aussi do not care for Democrats or Republicans, they are not solving problems together.

Jim,

Resurrect the Bull Moose!

The 151% increase in profit margin was for one year. (Don't confuse the rate of increase with the net.)

It is a result of Medicare Part D allowing private insurers to tax Medicare recipients.

Anytime something is so essential to life as healthcare whomever provides it is a taxing authority. (Robis Pierre's rule # 1!)

With other industries, ie electricity and telephones for example that require large capitalization and to ensure full coverage nationwide, we have historically relied on quasi-governmental/corporate union to effect the required infrastructure. Think of the TVA, think of the Bell telephone system prior to deregulation as examples.

So in the current system, the taxing mechanism for health care delivery (except Medicare & VA) has been surrendered to the corporate system which makes all decisions solely based on profit. An amoral decision making process when it is working at its best and immoral when not working or working at its worst. (Robis Pierre's rule # 2!)

You also exhibit naivete about calculating Net from Gross. If you have any experience in business you should be aware of the skulduggery and manipulation of accounting reports ala AIG, Enron, etc., etc., etc! Principally to evade taxes and shift their social responsibility to you and me. (Robis Pierre's rule # 3!)I can't believe that someone as astute as you has such faith in the good intentions of corporations.

With all of the corruption and power at the top of both corporations and government, our system is essentially a conspiracy to make the middle class pay for everything. (Robis Pierre's rule # 4!)

I say a pox on both government, corporations, Dems, Reps, and anyone else trying to steal my money. I thank my ancestors for all the guns in our family.

Resurrect Teddy Roosevelt! Resurrect the Bull Moose!

Jim,

Have we chased everyone away?

Maybe we should meet at another thread and start again.

The naivete is not mine. Who pays corporate taxes? The customers of the corporation. It is an essential part of the operation of any business.

It's not my fault the government has created all of these loopholes in the tax code, etc. But I agree on corruption. The rules that insurers operate under are a big part of the problem, anti-trust exemptions, etc. First thing we do, kill all the lobbyists. Then tell the lawyers they are next.

Let me know when the shooting starts!

Can you hear that? It's the sound of the party of liberals imploding taking their unAmerican ideas back into their rat holes!!

Ahhhhh...what a relief...back to life in the real America I know and love...where I am free to work and live and die the way I choose, not the way I have to because Princess Nancy, Prince Harry or King Obama think they know how I should with my own money.

Buh-bye selfish immoral liberals! BUH-BYE! :)

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!